Map of Long Range Transportation Plan Projects
It’s easier to think of reasons why the University of Memphis should have kept football coach Larry Porter than reasons we should keep the Memphis MPO.
The MPO (Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) has a record of failure when it comes to rational, well-reasoned transportation planning and it is mockery of the federal government’s new emphasis on livability and sustainability.
If sprawl is a smoking gun, there’s little doubt that MPO’s fingerprints are on the weapon. If there is a poster child for bureaucratic processes that waste time and money, it is the MPO. If there is an agency masquerading as regional that is truly more suburban and rural-dominated, we don’t know of one.
We are thinking of this history as we looked at the MPO’s 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which began with such great fanfare and appears to be on the verge of replicating the same irrational transportation planning that is quintessentially the Memphis MPO. We had such high hopes for this planning process when it began with its promise for more openness, new outreach, and new vision, but in the end, it’s at risk to be more of the same, lacking the promised degree of transparency, a logical methodology for setting priorities, and a compelling framework for decision-making.
The Wrong Focus
The MPO has made progress in finally recognizing the value of a bike and pedestrian-oriented plan, even if it take a nudge from the federal government to do it. Even with this improvement, the real agenda is still auto-focused.
The 2040 LRTP is a serious missed opportunity at the exact moment when the wisdom of smart planning and the need to reverse previous mistakes seem to have general acceptance and support. That’s why the current map of the LRTP is precisely what we don’t need in this community now and why it is so out of touch with the prevailing understanding of what makes communities work and succeed.
The current map for the LRTP reflects the sprawl-inducing personality of the agency. First, it fueled sprawl and now its plan rewards it. At a time when there is no argument that the costs of sprawl are unsustainable and that increasing urban densities are keys to affordable government and successful economies, the MPO treats decisions on highways as political transactions rather than economic development investments that they should be.
The fixation on congestion mitigation has produced massive expenditures on roadways that do little to create jobs and new economic development investments while economic arteries are ignored. There are numerous highways in our region that are built to six-lanes to solve congestion that exists for a few hours each weekday. Then there are highways like the vital logistics highway, Lamar, that have been trying for more than a decade to get the attention that it demands and that is vital for economic development.
Self-fulfilling Prophecy
Meanwhile, the LRTP embraces a mindless approach to smart infrastructure investment, the kind that bolsters and contributes to real economic development. Perhaps, that’s the obvious by-product of a board that’s heavy on politicians and light on any members who know how our regional economy works and how to measure the what highways should really be – investments in new jobs and new economic activity.
We share the deep concern of the Downtown Memphis Commission and others that the LRTP does nothing as effectively as accelerating the disinvestment in Memphis, the city whose present and future drive the future of this entire region.
The MPO is in the process of finalizing its plan, and it’s time for all of us who are weary of its lack of strategic vision to scream loudly about its current direction, because it is unquestionably failing in its stated goals of promoting a more livable community and sustainable development patterns.
Transportation infrastructure spending drives the location of private development, and with a plan directing almost all of this investment outside the I-240 loop, the MPO is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of continued sprawl and unsustainable growth. Without a comprehensive growth plan and the incorporation of economic development strategies, the current LRTP methodology will continue to perpetuate the same unsustainable pattern that it has for decades.
As we’ve written before, we need an Office of Connecting the Dots and that’s never been more obvious than with the LRTP. It flies in the face of the goals and strategies in the Sustainable Shelby plan, the Sustainable Communities philosophy, and other steps that have been made and will now be crushed by the LRTP’s big decisions on where transportation dollars will be spent.
Unbalanced
MPO is one of those arcane, little-known public agencies with huge impact on our future, and it’s past time to shine a spotlight on a process that remains broken and a structure that is unrepresentative and unfair to the needs of Memphis.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (only the federal government could dream up such a name, complete with inevitable acronym, ISTEA) was supposed to be a renaissance for more than 300 MPO’s, ushering in equal time for cleaner air, energy conservation, and social equity.
Central cities are routinely underrepresented in the voting of the largest 50 MPO’s, but only one city is more weighted outside the major city as much as Memphis. According to the Brookings Institution, the Memphis population accounts for more than 60 percent of the total MPO population, but only 16 per cent of its members represent Memphis. Meanwhile, 84 percent of the members are white in a region that is on the verge of being majority African-American.
A report by Brookings Institution about five years ago on 50 large MPOs in the U.S. concluded that Memphis has the third most unbalanced board. While the City of Memphis had 63 percent of the total population, it had only 16 percent of MPO members. Meanwhile, suburbs with 32 percent of the population control 79 percent of the vote.
Time for Reform
In addition, Memphis was cited as one of the most racially unequal. Despite Memphis’ large African-American population, 84 percent of MPO’s members were white. “That MPO boards do not reflect the geographic or racial composition of the metropolitan populations they serve should be a cause for concern, especially given that MPOs were intended by the federal framers to be an essential conduit for implementing reforms and ensuring public accountability,” the report said.
Nothing has improved since the Brookings report. That’s why it’s time for elected representatives of Memphis – from City Council to County Commission and to the U.S. Congress – to take every possible action – legal, political, and through U.S. DOT policies – to eliminate the disproportionate representation that disenfranchises the interests of the people of Memphis.
Shelby County Commissioner Mike Ritz met a stonewall when he raised this serious issue a couple of years ago, but he was on the right track. Unbelievably, he couldn’t get enough support on the board of commissioners – the majority of members represent the disenfranchised city of Memphis – to address the issue in a way that would get the attention of federal officials concerned about civil rights issues and fundamental fairness.
The fairest option is weighted voting (16 of the 50 large MPOs use it) which apportions votes based on each government’s share of the total population. That avoids the kinds of disparities that happen here, where the vote of the Memphis mayor (population: 646,889) can be cancelled out by the vote of the mayor of Walls (population: 1,162) and trumped by the mayor of Gallaway (population: 680).
We can only imagine the howls if the roles were reversed.
Cause and Effect
This voting imbalance is a direct cause of imbalances in transportation policy and it’s easy to see why with the makeup of the Memphis MPO:
Governor, State of Tennessee
Governor, State of Mississippi
Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Transportation
Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Transportation
Mayor, Shelby County
Mayor, City of Bartlett
Mayor, City of Memphis
Mayor, City of Germantown
Mayor, Town of Collierville
Mayor, City of Lakeland
Mayor, Town of Arlington
Mayor, City of Millington
Mayor, Fayette County
Mayor, City of Braden
Mayor, City of Piperton
Mayor, City of Gallaway
Mayor, City of Olive Branch
Mayor, City of Southaven
Mayor City of Hernando
Mayor City of Horn Lake
Mayor City of Walls
Chairperson, Memphis Area Transit Authority
Chairperson, Memphis and Shelby County Port Commission
President, Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
President, DeSoto County, Mississippi Board of Supervisors
Worst to Come
This imbalance will only get worse.
New area from Marshall County, Tipton County, and Fayette County is set to be added to the MPO, which means that without fundamental reform of the agency, its high-flown rhetoric about livability and vibrancy are little more than a continued bait and switch.
A) at some during the public meetings, a few dared to propose not a slow growth model or a rapid growth model but a NO GROWTH fix-it-first model. The crowd cheered. With a few exceptions, staff looked like these people were from Mars.
B) the population growth estimates used to support the plan have been suspect and never explained beyond the same circular logic used in the I269 argument… “we need the roads to support the development that will come as a result of building the roads”.
C) I know he is but one vote (or four if you count the members he appoints), BUT Mayor Wharton is the Chair and has been the Chair of the MPO. Let’s not act like he is over in the corner while his ideas are being bulldozed by suburban leaders. He has a heavy hand and holds some of the responsibility.
D) who signs the staff checks? Nashville’s MPO has an extraordinary group and an enthusiastic, creative, bold director working on transit funding, land-use issues and regional cooperation. Memphis & Shelby county pay the rent for our MPO and then allow what you have described to happen anyway. This is as much on us as it is on the imbalance in the system or the burbs.
memphis mpo is under opd.
Actually, the mpo isn’t under opd. it is under dpd.
‘division’?`
whatever.
nobody’s listening anyway.
What kind of @#$% plan is that supposed to be?!!! I went to several of the public meetings throughout the process and from Midtown to Bartlett I heard similar themes emerging: curb sprawl and invest within existing neighborhoods and developed areas. I am furious! Can we sue? There has to be a record of the public feedback they received and apparently decided to ignore. This is #@$% ridiculous!!!
continued: Widen the Nonconnah (TN385)?!! Why in the #$^%&* should we spend money to widen the Nonconnah when TDOT’s own traffic data shows that the number of cars using the roadway has been in decline since a peak in 2005? This is ridiculous!
The main problem with our MPO is the staff expertise, or lack thereof. The MPO staff does little more than “manage” the consultants and write checks. Engineering consultants were hired to create this plan. It should be no surprise that traffic engineers with a suburban focus and work history created an auto-oriented and suburban-centric plan.
First step to fix the MPO is to replace most of the staff with actual subject matter experts.
This blog is 99.99% on point. You are incorrect on one major point- weighted voting. The Memphis MPO already has weighted voting on “critical vote” issues. These critical votes are issues involve spending money or adopting plans. The Memphis contingent (City, MATA, Airport, Port) can vote together and have a majority. Don’t let AC off the hook. He has not shown leadership as MPO Chair, but he could…
First step to fix the MPO is to replace most of the staff ….
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The staff at the MPO are wonderful, dedicated people. Most are trained urban planners holding masters’ degrees in planning and/or urban design. They know what they are doing.
What some of you don’t seem to know is that like any other public agency, staff at the MPO must give way to power and political will. It’s easy to criticize public employees, but until you’ve worked in these positions and seen how good ideas are routinely dismissed and good employees are routinely told to keep their mouths shut, then you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
This blog regularly takes cheap shots at MPO staff, DPD staff, and Office of Economic Development staff, among others. It’s ridiculous. You all act as if you don’t understand that staff at these agencies must carry out the missions and goals defined by their superiors and politically-appointed boards and commissions. Most of these staff members are very creative and highly intellectual, but they rarely get the opportunity to bring their creativity to their jobs. You can replace them all you want; you’ll get the same result.
The Nashville MPO is successful due in large part to the talent and passion of their administrator (Mike Skipper). Memphis MPO has had a long line of caretaker administrators who were more interested in maintaining status quo than they were in pushing the envelope and fighting for the kind of transformative change that is needed in local transportation/growth policy. It is not enough to have a planning degree from a bottom tier planning school. We need subject matter experts with proven experience in connecting urban transportation policy with sustainable growth and land use planning. Just because someone has a degree in planning does not make them a good, forward thinking professional. Also, it is possible to think that the existing staff members are nice, dedicated people, and still consider them inadequate for the job. The fact that the Memphis MPO has to use an outside consultant on practically every major project is a red flag that staff capacity is low.
Of course we live in a political world and we all know that staff is not the ultimate decision maker. But to hide behind this fact is akin to giving up before the fight. I would suggest that the first step in changing the conversation about local transportation planning is to get subject matter experts on staff at the Memphis MPO. The suburban interests are dominating the conversation right now…there is no one with a backbone and credible work experience on the other side.
For the record, we have never taken a shot at the MPO staff. They are good people and we know the LRTP doesn’t reflect any personal or professional beliefs since it is antithetical to smart planning. We wrote a post about a year ago that pointed out that the staff does the best they can with a badly, badly, badly flawed structure. We have never criticized DPD because we realize that city-county have not put an emphasis on planning and have not funded it appropriately either. The priority on planning must begin at the top.
Finally, as for the Office of Economic Development, we believe that the decision of the mayors to do away with it is the strongest testament to its ineffectiveness.
All that said, employees must be true to their professional credentials and not simply buckle under to the political whims of the day. There are ways to have influence but it requires taking a professional stand on what’s important – say density, economic development, etc. If the staff of ANY public department is simply willing to bend to whichever way the winds are blowing, they forfeit their opportunity to shape the agenda and influence priorities.
As for MPO weighted voting, there is none now, and the instances where there is the opportunity for city interests to join together to carry the day are limited and seem designed to keep a city-centric philosophy from taking root.
SCM- The Memphis MPO does have “weighted voting.” It is called a “Critical Issue” vote. Look in their Prospectus on their website. It should be in the appendix. You may have to find an older version as the online version may not include the appendix. There is a chart that shows the weighted vote of each municipality- based on total population.
http://memphismpo.org/index.php?option=com_joomdoc&view=docman&gid=41&task=cat_view&Itemid=373
Look for the file titled MPO Prospectus
I both know and have worked with staff at the MPO. They are by in large a well educated and talented group of individuals. However, to follow through with a directive or “orders from above” when it is known that the results of the action will do harm to the community whose best interests you are employed to serve- well, it should start to raise eyebrows, right? If we viewed the city as a sickly patient, these individuals would certainly be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
To approach the issue from a different viewpoint, we have 2 questions regarding the MPO. Either:
…the staff is well educate. This or course requires that they know full well the negative impact their decisions will continue to have on the community and they continue to down said path. The motivating factors are secondary.
-or-
…the staff does not realize the impact their efforts are having on the community nor do they realize how their decisions will impact the lives and well being of every citizen for decades- even centuries- to come, This of course means they are not competent to serve their roles.
Is the MPO staffed by professionals or draftsmen?
UN… Excellent final point. However, I don’t want to be too staff critical. This only really works when there is leadership. Whether or not they are pros or draftsmen, until there is an external push or visionary leader or something truly catastrophic that we can no longer avoid… there is only so much movement we can expect.
Who wants to rush the next MPO meeting & demand a voice as large as the freight & land development lobbies?
We could call it the Are You Freakin Blind This Place Is Dying Because Of You committee.
Why are you haters so determined to control people and force them to live in dense urban squalor?
John,
Thanks. I especially appreciate the fact that you could read through my horrific grammar! Please sign me up for the AYFBTPIDBOY.
Why are you haters so determined to control people and force them to live in dense urban squalor?
What a maroon.
“..Office of Economic Development staff,”
Who? aren’t they all EDGED out by now?
Where’s the evidence that Memphis’ present and future drive the future of this entire region?
You folks need to stop loitering around the abandoned railroad depots and join the rest of us in the new millineum.
Actually I-269, it is your position regarding sprawl that appears to be antiquated (very 1950s to 1980s to be specific). In case you have not noticed the “urb” is all the rage across both the nation and around the globe. When you decide to join the party, we will have a special chair wating for you.
I hate being baited but here I go jumping on the hook…
I269:
I want you to live in any manner you choose as long as you can pay for it. Roads, sewers, firemen, police/sheriffs all cost a ton of money. The less dense, the higher the tax rate. Unfortunately, decisions made a generation ago allowed/forced Memphians to A) absorb those costs saddling this generation with the bill for your lifestyle and B) sacrifice our identity in exchange for endless mile after mile of inefficient character deprived failure.
It is no secret that I am one of the few token conservatives trolling this site. The market cannot support the low density model of development we have embraced. For our own financial well being, we have to A) take care of what we have FIRST, B) restrict projects to areas that are supported by existing infrastructure and then C) plan growth that logically offsets it’s true costs with actual revenue not magic money that our grandkids may discover buried in the suburban back yard when original taxpayers have moved even farther away again!
This isn’t a social experiment for me. This is regional survival. Compete or die. I ain’t paying for you to live in low density squalor anymore and thousands upon thousands are leaving the region because they’re even more tired of it than me.
I’m a little slow today. Just occurred to me I269 may be sarcasm that was lost on me. Sorry guys for not having a sense of humor.
Urbanut,
If sprawl is really so antiquated (and unsustainable), it’s amazing that it has flourished here for well over a half of a century.
Anti-sprawl urban hipsters are just control freaks who want everyone playing in skate parks and riiding bicycles to work. I suspect they won’t be happy until we all live in these:
http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/imagessoviet-housing-gavar-14-small.jpg
I remember a few years when MLG&W tore up gas lines all over Memphis and replaced them with new lines. My gas bill from MLG&W never did include a special assessment for the new and improved gas lines.
I guess the MLG&W customers out in sprawlington, with their shiny new infrastructure, subsidized the cost of these new gas lines for John and me.
This is just one of many examples of how those living in sprawl float the people living in the urban core.
Every time urban hipsters put away their commuting bikes and take a drive to Nashville, they do so on highways paid for with gas taxes. Do you reckon they stop in sprawlington along the way and thank those suburbanites for paying the user fees that make the roads possible?
I-269,
Generalize much?
How do you reason that those in suburban areas subsidized the cost of replacing aging infastrucutre?
I-269,
Who do you suppose paid MLG&W to replace my aged natural gas line at property I own in a 100 year old Memphis subdivision?
Hint: the cost never appeared as a line item on my MLG&W bill
I have a friend who lives in a ten year old subdivision out in sprawlington. He buys his electricity from MLG&W. The power lines in his subdivision are buried underground. A tree has never crashed into those lines leaving him and his neighbors without power.
A couple of times this years, trees have dropped branches onto power lines in my neighborhood. I was awaken in the middle of the night by chainsaw crews clearing away the limbs one of this times. Hours later, another crew was still working to repair the old lines and restore electricity. When they finished, I could then operate my garage door opener to retrieve my vehicle and finally drive to work.
That episode resulted in a lot of costs (to MLG&W, my employer, and me). A special thank you is due to my MLG&W ratepaying friend out in sprawlington for helping to subsidize this cost to again repair antiquated infrastructure in my neighborhood.
Your example is built on the assumption that had their suburban subdivision not been built, your friends would not live anywhere within the area serviced by MLGW.
By the way, I can guarantee you your friends are also subject to weather related outages unless you actually believe the power lines that serve their neighborhood are in fact buried in totality between the power plant and their home. Example: the residents of Germantown- known for requiring that utilities be placed below grade- were also left without power during both what was apparently a rather catastrophic ice storm in the early 1990s as well as the derecho event in 2003. Besides, your good friends in Millington probably paid an extrememly miniscule amount toward storm recovery. You can thank FEMA (which is commonly turned to by communities to reinburst such costs once a disaster is declared) for that.
Which system will result in higher maintenance costs:
1) A system which is composed of 25,000 miles of above and below grade power lines to reach the residences and businesses of a community of 1 million people
-or-
2) A system which is composed of 5,000 miles of above and below grade power lines to reach the residences and businesses of a community of 1 million people.
As you ponder this question remember to include not oft thought of characteristics of a power grid: the right-of-way (and lost revenue since such r.o.w. is typically not taxed), the travel necessary to reach far flung (sprawling) systems and the money this consumes in gas and equipment wear and the inefficiency this creates in lost time given to actual labor due to travel.
My friend in sprawlington has had minimal weather related power outages, if any, during the period of time he has lived there. Conversely, I have experienced numerous outages during the same period of time – all of which cost the entirety of ratepayers.
As for the FEMA assistance provided to Millington – I imagine that most of them pay their Federal income taxes just like the rest of us (oops, except for those living in poverty and on the federal dole – especially in Memphis).
For the cost of maintaining various infrastructure systems to be meaningful, it seems we’d also need to fully explore whether or not the systems’ users are paying for the fully for the maintenance and use of the system.
Oh, and now that you mention federal assistance – how much total federal assistance does the urban core receive in contrast to sprawlington? Run the numbers on that and you’ll discover that the urban core receives far more in federal tax dollars in proportion to what it contributes (lots and lots of people using ebt cards and generally not paying any federals income taxes abound in the urban core) in contrast to sprawlington, its federal income tax paying residents, and the proportionally minimal amount of per capita federal tax dollars it receives.
There is a published study that indicates that population density may function as an intervening variable in the production of mental illness.
Such is depth of the “smart city” rabbit hole.
I do not know why my last two comments display as anonymous.
I-269
Well… Density isn’t the cause of mental illness around here.
“Where’s the evidence that Memphis’ present and future drive the future of this entire region?”
It’s everywhere. Why are we on the worst list of every magazine? Why are we lagging in economic growth and job growth? If Memphis goes down, it’s going to drag Suburbia down with it. Or are you one of the people around here whoa ctually think the suburbs here actually compare favorably to suburbs of truly prosperous cities?
SCM wrote: “Finally, as for the Office of Economic Development, we believe that the decision of the mayors to do away with it is the strongest testament to its ineffectiveness.”
SCM — The very mayors and Chamber of Commerce that you frequently praise are the very reason that the OED didn’t work. The Chamber of Commerce called the shots at OED, and the mayors cowered. Now there’s a new structure which is to be run by…SURPRISE…a Chamber of Commerce guy! So now they have their guy in charge — which is what they’ve wanted all along. And the OED staff members who’ve tried desperately to be fair and have tried their hardest to reign in the out-of-control PILOT program will now be replaced by Chamber of Commerce drones. I know you guys are big fans of the Chamber and can’t control yourselves praising them, but the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that goes on (with the Chamber heavy-handing the OED over and over and over again) is sickening. Now it’s going to get even worse. If it were up to the Chamber, not one business in Memphis would pay one cent in any kind of taxes. Now, it’s up to the Chamber.
Anon: That’s certainly one version of why the Office of Economic Development didn’t work, but the OED’s biggest problems were of its own making. It wasn’t strategic in its thinking, it wasn’t innovative, and it played to the past more than envisioning a different future based on competencies rather than cheapness. Defining success by how much tax money you can waive is a race to the bottom and it was at the head of the pack. And if you think we are sycophants for the the ED establishment, you have a selective memory. We made the point about the challenge for the new EDGE head in a separate post last week.
Finally, the Chamber didn’t hire the OED staff, it didn’t appoint the IDB members, and the OED staff doesn’t answer to the Chamber but to the mayors. So, if OED lost the confidence of the mayors, it seems OED would first ask themselves why its own work plan and priorities didn’t inspire their own bosses.
I-269,
I wish I had the time and the energy to run those numbers, if nothing else than simply for the sake of producing reliable information. Agree per the payment towards infrastructure costs and maintenance. We would need to include the original costs for installation of those systems within the existing urban core and the average cost of maintenance. Much of the existing system in the urban core was “paid for” generations ago and thus, minus maintenance, provides a pure profit for MLGW. not to mention much of this existing infrastructure is actually utilized to provide service to suburban areas which of course complicates the analysis but it would still be an analysis capable of completion. While we are analyzing funds spent within the existing urbanized area and those spent to support suburban areas, we would of course need to include costs associated with construction and maintenance of highways such as I-269 whose primary reason for being is to serve as corridors for suburban sprawl. Also for consideration- but not necessarily inclusion- would be the costs of such federal projects as the dredging and straightening of creeks and rivers that have supported suburban development within existing floodplains. Much of the original urban core of the city was built prior to such projects and thus these flood mitigation and control actions would may not be considered a factor in the urban core’s development.
While I don’t have the time right this second, something tells me we are not the first two individuals to think of such an idea and there are probably numerous studies floating around on the web that accomplish just this topic.
By the way, you have your deserted ghettos, and I have my great urban- high density streets and neighborhoods:
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/07/11/exploring-streets-ahead/
http://urbangreens.tumblr.com/post/7088647582/irishboyinlondon-i-really-like-this-fun
http://www.riverinnmemphis.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/harbor-town-pictures-023-custom.jpg
http://allaboutcities.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
http://www.walkingoffthebigapple.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
Anonymous: if you have the courage to step out from behind your hidden identity, email me directly with any questions you have. I’d be happy to answer them thoroughly. You might be surprised when you get all the facts, but based on your comments, that may not be an interest of yours. Have a good Christmas.